Re: package reviews for Pandoc and CVE-2023-35936

Hmm it looks like I really do need to update everything to LTS 22 to achieve the pandoc rebase properly (since it needs newer Haskell tls). Here's one more package review: toml-parser: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266093 needed by the typst library. Jens --

Re: package reviews for Pandoc and CVE-2023-35936

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 8:22 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > > Another day, another needed package (this would also be part of the postponed > Stackage LTS 22 change): > I forgot that pandoc > 3.1.3 had moved to the new crypton stack that replaces > cryptonite: > > crypton:

Re: package reviews for Pandoc and CVE-2023-35936

Another day, another needed package (this would also be part of the postponed Stackage LTS 22 change): I forgot that pandoc > 3.1.3 had moved to the new crypton stack that replaces cryptonite: crypton: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266044 Next would be crypton-x509... Is it

WAS: package reviews for Pandoc and CVE-2023-35936

People, While we are on this topic - are there any Pandoc gurus here? - I posted a note on the Pandoc site but haven't had any responses yet . . Thanks, Phil. On 2024-02-23 19:03, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: (changed the subject) On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:14 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

package reviews for Pandoc and CVE-2023-35936

(changed the subject) On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:14 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 02:06:22PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > > I realised a second open package review is > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068718 (isocline) >

help needed with 2 haskell package reviews

Hi, I would really like these two packages added to F38: NEW ghc-constraints: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2162872 NEW ghc-base64: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163472 both are needed by newer pandoc and a number of other packages. Can anyone please help review

Package reviews

Hi all. I have two reviews in pending [1][2]; they're new packages needed by next COPASI [3] release. If someone checks them, i can review other software in exchange. [1] google-cpu_features, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933412 [2] nativejit,

Package reviews

Hi all. I have two new packages ready for the review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808573 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808571 I'm available to review other packages in return. -- --- Antonio Trande Fedora Project mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org' GPG

Re: Looking for volunteers for a handful of Go package reviews

Hi, golang-github-anacrolix-envpprof is done (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684936) Is there a package which is blocking all others ? I have some time to do review Didier. Le 04/03/2019 à 02:05, Robert-André Mauchin a écrit : > Hello, > > I have several Go packages in need of a

Re: Looking for volunteers for a handful of Go package reviews

I have several Go packages in need of a review for the latest Rclone version. I'm available for any review in exchange. - golang-github-anacrolix-dms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956 I would review it, but i am not in the packager group 8-( All i can offer is a unofficial

Looking for volunteers for a handful of Go package reviews

Hello, I have several Go packages in need of a review for the latest Rclone version. I'm available for any review in exchange. - golang-github-anacrolix-dms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956 - golang-github-anacrolix-ffprobe

Re: Package Reviews

On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 19:49 +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like some help for a couple of package reviews: > > Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for > rclone > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 I've got t

Package Reviews

Hello, I'd like some help for a couple of package reviews: Review Request: rclone-browser - Simple cross platform GUI for rclone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642570 Review Request: strawberry - An audio player and music collection organizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com

two package reviews

Hi, I have two packages up for review that could use some attention please: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411875 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1411947 Thanks, -- Kaleb ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

;ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:18:25 - > "Raphael Groner" <raph...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open > > issue to implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:18:25 - "Raphael Groner" <raph...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open > issue to implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in > contact with the badges team. > https://fe

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:28:01 +0530 Parag Nemade wrote: > After long time I see this script results on devel list. Last few > maintainers have tried to update this script but I think whenever > bugzilla gets updated this script got broken. > But I really don't see any need to

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

> >> Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue > to implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact with > the badges team. > >> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges/ticket/101 > > > > whoa! would be happy to

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko <ignate...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Raphael Groner > <raph...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue to >> implement ba

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > For me would be better some page with stats/links to weekly status, > monthly status, yearly status and some nice graphics ;) > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Michal Novotny wrote: >> Hello,

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Raphael Groner <raph...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue to > implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact with the > badges team. > https://fedorahosted

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Raphael Groner <raph...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue to > implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact with the > badges team. > https://fedorahosted

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

Can that information be used to award badges? There's an old open issue to implement badges for doing package reviews. Maybe get in contact with the badges team. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-badges/ticket/101 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

For me would be better some page with stats/links to weekly status, monthly status, yearly status and some nice graphics ;) On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Michal Novotny wrote: > Hello, > > as a new Fedora Infrastructure apprentice, I am currently working on this > first

Re: Package Reviews Statistics

On 07/11/2016 11:18 AM, Michal Novotny wrote: > Hello, > > as a new Fedora Infrastructure apprentice, I am currently working on > this first infrastructure ticket > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3748. > > Basically, I updated an old script that collects stats on packages

Package Reviews Statistics

Hello, as a new Fedora Infrastructure apprentice, I am currently working on this first infrastructure ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3748. Basically, I updated an old script that collects stats on packages reviews present on Bugzilla. I wonder if this information

PHP package reviews for libraries in mediawiki

Hello, Mediawiki was bundling PHP libraries. The latest stable release is attempting to un-bundle them by clearly splitting them out into a vendor sub-directory. I have created package reviews for these libraries so they do not have to be bundled. I will work with swapping reviews, too

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 17:20 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Yeah. Part of the reason I suggested this to you long back was that it keeps the idea of reviews as part of the conversation for this list but also because it was a nod of recognition for the reviewers who were often doing grunt work

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

On Sat, 2013-04-13 at 16:14 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote: I'll file a ticket with the infra team. Ticket filed: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3748 -- Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur: FranciscoD Please only print if necessary. Looking to contribute to Fedora? Look here:

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

Just followed the script link and got cgit error. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

On 13 April 2013 12:37, Christopher Meng wrote: Just followed the script link and got cgit error. Hi, The link would be: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/triage.git/tree/scripts/bzReviewReport.py Regards, -- Rakesh Pandit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh freedom, friends,

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

On 13 April 2013 09:14, Ankur Sinha wrote: On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 17:20 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Yeah. Part of the reason I suggested this to you long back was that it keeps the idea of reviews as part of the conversation for this list but also because it was a nod of recognition for the

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

Hi On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote: Share the ticket once you have opened it. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3748 Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

Hi, During 2010-2011, I used to generate 15 day report for package reviews and post it[1]. There were yearly report as well[2]. In case anyone is interested in taking it up again, feel free to do so. Script is available at: https://fedorahosted.org/triage/browser/scripts/bzReviewReport.py

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, During 2010-2011, I used to generate 15 day report for package reviews and post it[1]. There were yearly report as well[2]. In case anyone is interested in taking it up again, feel free to do so. Script

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

On 12 April 2013 20:55, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote: Hi, During 2010-2011, I used to generate 15 day report for package reviews and post it[1]. There were yearly report as well[2]. In case anyone is interested in taking it up again, feel free

Re: any one interested in generating reports for package reviews ?

Hi On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote: [..] Couldn't infrastructure team just automate this? [..] If infrastructure team agrees to do it, script will need some adjustment. Yeah. Part of the reason I suggested this to you long back was that it keeps the idea of

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

Ken Dreyer wrote, at 12/30/2012 01:01 AM +9:00: I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem to be formally documented.

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:42:02 +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes Could somebody with Edit access for this page please add it to category PackageMaintainers? Then it would appear on the main page

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

On 2012-12-30 11:42, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Ken Dreyer wrote, at 12/30/2012 01:01 AM +9:00: I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't

package reviews: new Release for every update

I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem to be formally documented. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Should

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

On 2012-12-29 17:01, Ken Dreyer wrote: I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem to be formally documented.

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

Alec Leamas: On 2012-12-29 17:01, Ken Dreyer wrote: I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem to be formally documented.

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote: I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the new packager has overwritten the previous spec. If the packager does that, it makes the rpmdev-diff

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

On 2012-12-29 19:45, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote: I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the new packager has overwritten the previous spec. If the

Re: package reviews: new Release for every update

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:20:25 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: On 2012-12-29 19:45, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote: I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the

Exchanging package reviews

Hello All! is there anyone interested in exchanging reviews? I'm willing to trade these ones: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/854458 - erlang-riak_pb - Riak Protocol Buffers Messages (one of the requirements for the next 1.2.0 version of Riak) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/823458 - erlang-erlsha2 -

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

Excerpts from Brendan Jones's message of Fri Dec 16 00:32:24 +0100 2011: On 12/15/2011 09:57 PM, Brendan Jones wrote: On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: Hello fellow devs, I am sure quite a few of you have done some reviews and thought Hey, a,b,c and d could be

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

On 2011-12-19 10:32, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: I can tell you right now that cornercases will never be caught with tools like this. Licensecheck only looks at headers/comments, whereas licensing depends on many things and can be quite confusing. I am sure that rpmdevtools maintainers would

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

On 16.12.2011 00:32, Brendan Jones wrote: Not sure if this is something which should be part of this package or another entirely? Sure, we will reinvent the wheel yet again (see http://www.fossology.org/ ... yes it would probably require some fedora-wide server, or maybe not, I don't know

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: Hello fellow devs, I am sure quite a few of you have done some reviews and thought Hey, a,b,c and d could be automated. For E I could use some more information that can be automatically gathered. Some of you even wrote your own tools to do

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

On 12/15/2011 09:57 PM, Brendan Jones wrote: On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: Hello fellow devs, I am sure quite a few of you have done some reviews and thought Hey, a,b,c and d could be automated. For E I could use some more information that can be automatically gathered.

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: - Any ideas, bugreports etc will be much appreciated I would be very interested in feature, which instead of mock, will run Koji scratch build and then will download resulting packages from Koji. -- Miroslav Suchy Red Hat Satellite

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 17:06 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 11/21/2011 02:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: - Any ideas, bugreports etc will be much appreciated I would be very interested in feature, which instead of mock, will run Koji scratch build and then will download resulting

(re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

format for package reviews. There are more reasons, but I guess biggest one is there are just too many guidelines and there is probably no one who knows all of them. So few of us got together and hopefully created something that can be used by everyone. fedora-review[1] is now in updates-testing

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

some of these things. Yet there is no unified tool, nor format for package reviews. There are more reasons, but I guess biggest one is there are just too many guidelines and there is probably no one who knows all of them. So few of us got together and hopefully created something that can

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

be automatically gathered. Some of you even wrote your own tools to do some of these things. Yet there is no unified tool, nor format for package reviews. There are more reasons, but I guess biggest one is there are just too many guidelines and there is probably no one who knows all of them

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

Excerpts from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's message of Mon Nov 21 14:25:22 +0100 2011: [1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview [2] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/browser/api/README Is this not something that releng/autoqa could use as well as in run against all already existing specs

Re: (re)introducing - fedora-review - tool to help with package reviews

Well there may be a chance this tool may eventually become officially adopted by QA after it gets tested and used long enough to consider it safe/stable. On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com wrote: Excerpts from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's message of Mon Nov

Re: Starting a SIG for package reviews

Excerpts from Jason L Tibbitts III's message of Thu Jul 28 02:03:21 +0200 2011: So, that was pretty good response; only one reply here, but several names were added to the wiki page. There seem to be enough people interested to begin moving forward. Yeah, it would be nice to make our lives

Re: Starting a SIG for package reviews

SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes: SO I believe you forgot to set whenisgood to use timezones :-) My understanding is that you have to log in in order to set your timezone, or that choosing a timezone was something the responder had to do. When I created the form, Use

Re: Starting a SIG for package reviews

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes: SO I believe you forgot to set whenisgood to use timezones :-) My understanding is that you have to log in in order to set your timezone, or that choosing a timezone was something the

Re: Starting a SIG for package reviews

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net wrote: Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: SO == Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com writes: SO I believe you forgot to set whenisgood to use timezones :-) My understanding is that you have to log in in order to set your

Re: Starting a SIG for package reviews

So, that was pretty good response; only one reply here, but several names were added to the wiki page. There seem to be enough people interested to begin moving forward. I can't think of a better place for discussion than this list, so I'll just go ahead: Could someone volunteer to co-chair

Starting a SIG for package reviews

For a while now I've wanted to get some sort of package review SIG going. The package review process hasn't really evolved much since it was instituted way back when, and now it (and the portion of the sponsorship process it overlaps) has become a major bottleneck in one of the main ways of

Re: Package Reviews Needed

On 2011-06-06 11:17, Tom Callaway wrote: As usual, I will swap reviews or favors (within limits) for reviews on some new packages for me: mono-reflection: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711181 pyrit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 gambas3:

Re: Package Reviews Needed

Tom Callaway wrote: pyrit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 SARCASMOh great, because a tool to parasite wireless connections which the owners went out of the way to secure with the best available protocol is EXACTLY what we need…/SARCASM Use of this tool is probably against

Re: Package Reviews Needed

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Tom Callaway wrote: pyrit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 SARCASMOh great, because a tool to parasite wireless connections which the owners went out of the way to secure with the best available protocol is

Re: Package Reviews Needed

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Tom Callaway wrote: pyrit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 SARCASMOh great, because a tool to parasite wireless connections which the owners went out of the way to secure with the best available protocol is

Re: Package Reviews Needed

On 06/07/2011 12:29 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:12:19PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Tom Callaway wrote: pyrit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 SARCASMOh great, because a tool to parasite wireless connections which the owners went out of the way

Package Reviews Needed

As usual, I will swap reviews or favors (within limits) for reviews on some new packages for me: mono-reflection: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711181 pyrit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894 gambas3: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710203 As soon as

Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews

GH == Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org writes: GH How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a GH rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not? I'm catching up with mail after the weekend and noticed this unusually pointed bit of

Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:28:15 -0700 Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote: EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there. How is this

Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews

Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said: On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote: EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there. How is this any different, given that

Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews

On 4/29/11 8:54 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a rawhide branch without regard to whether one asks for it or not? I think the idea is that it allows people who wish to see reviews that are EPEL only. So, perhaps they

Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews

On 4/29/2011 9:12, Jesse Keating wrote: It is somewhat difficult, and odd, to create a git repo that does not have a master branch. It would be a little more odd to potentially at some point in the future create the master branch for a package should it find a home within Fedora. As you say,

Some changes to EPEL package reviews

Just as a FYI: EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Some changes to EPEL package reviews

On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote: EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there. How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a rawhide branch without regard to

Need new package reviews for Banshee iPhone support

gudev-sharp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639346 gkeyfile-sharp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639348 gio-sharp: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639350 gtk-sharp-beans: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=639351 Thanks! Nathaniel -- devel mailing